Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #47857 > unrolled thread

Version Control Software

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Version Control Software cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> - 2013-06-12 16:27 -0700
    Re: Version Control Software Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-06-12 16:36 -0700
    Re: Version Control Software Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-06-12 19:52 -0400
    Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 10:04 +1000
    Re: Version Control Software Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-06-12 21:41 -0500
    Re: Version Control Software Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-06-13 12:30 +1000
      Re: Version Control Software rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 04:54 -0700
      Re: Version Control Software Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-13 17:06 +0000
        Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-14 07:26 +1000
          Re: Version Control Software Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-13 21:53 +0000
            Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-14 07:59 +1000
            Re: Version Control Software Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 18:20 -0400
            Re: Version Control Software Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-06-13 20:09 -0400
        Re: Version Control Software Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 23:15 +0100
        Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-14 08:17 +1000
        Re: Version Control Software Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-06-13 15:24 -0700
        Re: Version Control Software Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-06-14 08:53 +1000
    Re: Version Control Software Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-06-12 21:48 -0500
    Re: Version Control Software Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-12 22:51 -0400
      Re: Version Control Software Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 13:43 +0100
    Re: Version Control Software cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> - 2013-06-12 23:00 -0700
      Re: Version Control Software rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-12 23:43 -0700
      Re: Version Control Software Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-13 07:08 -0400
      Re: Version Control Software MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-06-13 12:26 +0100
        Re: Version Control Software rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 04:46 -0700
      Re: Version Control Software Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2013-06-14 15:06 +0300
        Re: Version Control Software Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-14 08:32 -0400
          Re: Version Control Software Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-14 14:24 +0000
            Re: Version Control Software Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-06-14 16:55 -0400
            Re: Version Control Software Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-06-14 20:26 -0400
            Re: Version Control Software Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 15:39 +1000
            Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 15:53 +1000
              Re: Version Control Software Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-15 10:16 -0400
                Re: Version Control Software Giorgos Tzampanakis <giorgos.tzampanakis@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 15:29 +0000
                  Re: Version Control Software Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2013-06-15 18:29 +0000
                    Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 09:01 +1000
                  Re: Version Control Software Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 07:49 +1000
                Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 09:14 +1000
                  Re: Version Control Software rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 20:55 -0700
                    Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 14:13 +1000
                      Re: Version Control Software Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-16 05:20 +0000
                        Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 15:29 +1000
                        Re: Version Control Software Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-06-16 05:15 -0400
                        Re: Version Control Software Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 19:51 +1000
                Re: Version Control Software Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick <kwpolska@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 15:30 +0200
                  Re: Version Control Software Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-16 09:50 -0400
                    Re: Version Control Software Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it> - 2013-06-16 17:48 +0200
                    Re: Version Control Software Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-06-16 13:02 -0400
                Re: Version Control Software Jason Swails <jason.swails@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 12:39 -0400
    Re: Version Control Software Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-06-13 10:20 +0300
    Re: Version Control Software Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-06-13 07:34 -0500
      Re: Version Control Software Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-13 08:52 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#47857 — Version Control Software

I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision. Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial. Of course, I already did some research on different characteristics of version software, but I concluded that listening to personal experiences and opinions from the professionals will help me a lot. What version control software do you like the most and why? What is the difference between git and Mercurial? Also, if anyone can help me by doing google-chat or skype, please let me know. 

Thanks in advance!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#47858

> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision. Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial.

I'm not real experienced, but I understand that SVN is good if your
hosting your own code base, and CVS is hardly used anymore as it
doesn't support atomic commits (when having many developers work on
the same code base).  Git and hg have ben vying for several years with
no clear winner, yet

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47860

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

git or hg.  but git is most popular and very easy to learn.  Its also great
for distributed develpment


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>wrote:

> > I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision.
> Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial.
>
> I'm not real experienced, but I understand that SVN is good if your
> hosting your own code base, and CVS is hardly used anymore as it
> doesn't support atomic commits (when having many developers work on
> the same code base).  Git and hg have ben vying for several years with
> no clear winner, yet
>
> --
> MarkJ
> Tacoma, Washington
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>



-- 
Joel Goldstick
http://joelgoldstick.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47862

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:27 AM, cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision. Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial. Of course, I already did some research on different characteristics of version software, but I concluded that listening to personal experiences and opinions from the professionals will help me a lot. What version control software do you like the most and why? What is the difference between git and Mercurial? Also, if anyone can help me by doing google-chat or skype, please let me know.

Don't touch CVS unless you absolutely have to. SVN is also distinctly
old now. The three most popular modern source control systems are git,
hg, and bzr (Bazaar). Of the three, I would remove Bazaar from
consideration unless you're posting to a Canonical repository;
Mercurial and git are superior, in my experience.

Between those two (hg and git), though, it's really hard to call. I'm
personally familiar with git, and it serves me well; others have the
same experience with hg. Either will do you fine. They have some
different features, eg git detects file moves after the event while hg
prefers to be told about them up-front, but for normal daily tasks,
either is fine. Pick based on which one other people near you are
familiar with, so that you can get help when things go wrong - for
instance, I would be utterly useless when it comes to hg (I can't even
make patch files, which I can do just fine with git).

But above all, do use source control. The difference between that and
not is way WAY more than the difference between one system and another
:)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47887

[much of my reply echos Chris but elaborate]

On 2013-06-13 10:04, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:27 AM, cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
> > Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN,
> > CVS, and Mercurial.
> 
> Don't touch CVS unless you absolutely have to. SVN is also
> distinctly old now.

SVN had its place, but branching/merging is a pain (well, branching is
pretty easy, it's the merging that hurts).

> Mercurial and git are superior, in my experience.
> 
> Between those two (hg and git), though, it's really hard to call.
> I'm personally familiar with git, and it serves me well; others
> have the same experience with hg. Either will do you fine. 

A few pros (+) and cons (-) from my experiences:

+hg: much easier to transition from CVS/SVN as the command-line
syntax/structure matches much more closely

-git: the command-line interface feels rather distant from the
CVS/SVN classics

+hg: better cross-platform (i.e., including Win32) support

-git: a bit persnickity on Win32

-hg: last I checked, can't do octopus merges (merges with more than
two parents)

+git: can do octopus merges

-/+ hg: certain power-user functionality is relegated to plugins that
you need to activate (though many come standard, you have to activate
them)  This can be a plus if you don't want to have a foot-gun within
easy reach; this can be an annoyance if you regularly use those sorts
of tools appropriately (particularly the partial-commit that "git add
-p" provides)

+git: the internal data model is pretty simple making it easy to
understand where things stand and the status of various branches

+git: having multiple remotes and managing them feel a little easier
to me than with Mercurial (YMMV)

+hg: written in Python (with optional C component for some
CPU-intensive work, but can run without it if you don't have
compile-rights on a particular machine that does already have Python
installed)

-git: a hodge-podge of C, Perl, shell-scripts and other madness.
This is part of the Win32 ding above.

+hg:  Python devs have chosen Mercurial as their VCS of choice

+hg: bitbucket hosting

+git: github, gitorious, bitbucket hosting

+git, +hg: both have lots of big-name projects using them

+git, +hg: both have reasonably painless ways of talking to
repositories of other flavors (git can talk to CVS/SVN/hg repos; hg
can talk to CVS/SVN/git repos)

+git, +hg: documentation on both is top-notch (git's available
documentation has radically improved since it's grand suckage before
1.6; once 1.6 landed, git was far less user-hostile)


Given the choice, I eventually settled on git (after about 3-4
serious attempts to learn it, then giving up for a couple months and
retrying) unless I have to involve Win32 machines, as I like the
power it provides and how easy it is to understand in my head.
On Win32, I tend to bias towards Mercurial.  There are still some
aspects of Mercurial's internal models that leave me scratching my
head and rummaging through the docs (public vs. private branches,
bookmarking, preferring cloning to make branches) and surrendering
occasionally on more obscure things I know that I *should* be able to
do. That said, if you just want solid VCS behavior and already know
CVS/SVN, Mercurial will give you an easier transition.

And I believe most of what can be said about Mercurial can also be
said about Bazaar (bzr), though it seems to have less mindshare,
except perhaps among Ubuntu developers, as it has tighter integration
with LaunchPad.

Fortunately, since git/hg/bzr are all free, you can download them all
and kick the tires to see which one fits YOU (the OP) best.

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47888

cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> writes:

> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision.

> Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and
> Mercurial.

These days there is no good reason to use CVS nor Subversion for new
projects. They are not distributed (the D in DVCS), and they have
specific design flaws that often cause insidious problems with common
version control workflows. As a salient example, branching and merging
are so painful with these tools that many users have learned the
terrible habit of never doing it at all.

Bazaar, Git, and Mercurial are all excellent DVCS systems (and all have
excellent branching and merging support). For someone new to version
control, I would highly recommend Bazaar, or Mercurial if that's not an
option. I would not recommend Git for new work.

It helps that all of these are free software. Avoid proprietary tools
for development work, especially tools that control access to your data.

> What version control software do you like the most and why?

Bazaar. It has, in my experience, by far the easiest default workflow to
learn. It is also very flexible for the odd wrinkles in preferred
workflow that most beginners don't even know enough to realise they have.

(Examples of Bazaar features that make it IMO superior are: default to
view only the main-line revisions without the “merge noise” that would
happens with other VCSes; easily serve a branch from just about any
shared file storage; easily choose a centralised repository for
particular purposes without any other user needing to do anything
different).

Mercurial is relatively easy to learn, and full-featured; it is somewhat
more restrictive than Bazaar but not enough to recommend against.


Git is hugely capable and is the most popular, but still has some
annoying restrictions (e.g. it can't hide merged revisions, encouraging
poor practice like re-writing history when merging a branch).

But my main reason to recommend against Git is that its native interface
is far too baroque: it exposes its innards and requires the user to know
a huge range of internal concepts to avoid making mistakes.

You should be wary of GitHub, a very popular Git hosting site. It uses
what amount to proprietary protocols, which encourage using GitHub's
specific interface instead of native Git for your operations and hide a
lot of the needless complexity; but this results in a VCS repository
that is difficult to use *without* being tied to that specific site,
killing one of the best reasons to use a DVCS in the first place.

Gitorious is a Git hosting site that does not have this problem, and may
for that reason be a good choice for hosting your Git repositories. It
is also based on free software (unlike GitHub), so if the service goes
away for any reason, anyone else can produce a functionally identical
service from the same server code. This makes it a better bet for
hosting your repositories.

Neither Mercurial nor Bazaar suffer from Git's baroque complexity, and
with Bazaar's command interface being IME the easiest and most intuitive
to teach, I would recommend Bazaar for any new VCS user.


A sad caveat, though: Bazaar suffers from a foolishly limited
development pool (Canonical are the main copyright holder, and, instead
of accepting contributions under the same license they grant to others,
they obstinately insist on having special exclusive powers over the
code). Also, Bazaar's early versions did not impress large projects like
Linux or Python; improvements have long since erased the reasons for
that, but too late for widespread popularity.

So Bazaar's popularity never gained as much as Git or Mercurial. Worse,
development of Bazaar appears to have stagnated at Canonical — and,
because they insisted on being in a privileged copyright position,
no-one else is in a good position to easily carry on development.

Bazaar is still my recommendation of primary VCS tool, for its
flexibility, speed, wealth of plug-ins, ability to view revision history
sensible, and straightforward command interface. But you should go into
it aware that it may be a little more difficult to find fellow users of
Bazaar than of Mercurial.

-- 
 \           “The lift is being fixed for the day. During that time we |
  `\            regret that you will be unbearable.” —hotel, Bucharest |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47940

On Jun 13, 7:30 am, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>
> You should be wary of GitHub, a very popular Git hosting site. It uses
> what amount to proprietary protocols, which encourage using GitHub's
> specific interface instead of native Git for your operations and hide a
> lot of the needless complexity; but this results in a VCS repository
> that is difficult to use *without* being tied to that specific site,
> killing one of the best reasons to use a DVCS in the first place.

bitbucket -- originally only Hg based -- now supports Hg or git.
And for small private (non open source) repos its more affordable
http://tilomitra.com/bitbucket-vs-github/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47991

On 2013-06-13, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> writes:
>
>> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
>> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision.
>
>> Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and
>> Mercurial.
>
> These days there is no good reason to use CVS nor Subversion for new
> projects. They are not distributed (the D in DVCS), and they have
> specific design flaws that often cause insidious problems with common
> version control workflows. As a salient example, branching and merging
> are so painful with these tools that many users have learned the
> terrible habit of never doing it at all.

I agree that branch/merge handling in svn is primitive compared to git
(haven't used hg enough to comment).

The last time we made the choice (4-5 years ago), Windows support for
get, bzr, and hg was definitely lacking compared to svn.  The lack of
something like tortoisesvn for hg/git/bzr was a killer.  It looks like
the situation has improved since then, but I'd be curious to hear from
people who do their development on Windows.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I wonder if there's
                                  at               anything GOOD on tonight?
                              gmail.com            

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48025

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The last time we made the choice (4-5 years ago), Windows support for
> get, bzr, and hg was definitely lacking compared to svn.  The lack of
> something like tortoisesvn for hg/git/bzr was a killer.  It looks like
> the situation has improved since then, but I'd be curious to hear from
> people who do their development on Windows.

I do almost exclusively Linux dev, but occasionally nip onto Windows
for one reason or another (possibly inside a virtual machine). It's
possible to get git for Windows, including gitk and 'git gui' (not
sure about any other graphical tools, they're the only two I use), but
the most convenient way to use them is from a ported bash.
Fortunately, the installer will provide all of that, putting a 'Git
Bash' entry into the Start menu, and for someone who's come from Linux
anyway, working in bash is quite welcome.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48028

On 2013-06-13, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The last time we made the choice (4-5 years ago), Windows support for
>> get, bzr, and hg was definitely lacking compared to svn.  The lack of
>> something like tortoisesvn for hg/git/bzr was a killer.  It looks like
>> the situation has improved since then, but I'd be curious to hear from
>> people who do their development on Windows.
>
> I do almost exclusively Linux dev, but occasionally nip onto Windows
> for one reason or another (possibly inside a virtual machine). It's
> possible to get git for Windows, including gitk and 'git gui' (not
> sure about any other graphical tools, they're the only two I use), but
> the most convenient way to use them is from a ported bash.
> Fortunately, the installer will provide all of that, putting a 'Git
> Bash' entry into the Start menu, and for someone who's come from Linux
> anyway, working in bash is quite welcome.

Unfortunately, something that requires typing commands would not fly. 
I mostly use svn via command line and sometimes via meld, but for some
others (even one Linux developer), if it can't be done done entirely
from a GUI, then it isn't going to get done.

If it wasn't for Cygwin, I'd never be able to accomplish much of
anything in Windows. :)

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Oh my GOD -- the
                                  at               SUN just fell into YANKEE
                              gmail.com            STADIUM!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48029

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2013-06-13, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I do almost exclusively Linux dev, but occasionally nip onto Windows
>> for one reason or another (possibly inside a virtual machine). It's
>> possible to get git for Windows, including gitk and 'git gui' (not
>> sure about any other graphical tools, they're the only two I use)
>
> Unfortunately, something that requires typing commands would not fly.
> I mostly use svn via command line and sometimes via meld, but for some
> others (even one Linux developer), if it can't be done done entirely
> from a GUI, then it isn't going to get done.
>
> If it wasn't for Cygwin, I'd never be able to accomplish much of
> anything in Windows. :)

Check out 'git gui' then - and in the Windows build, that's in the
Start menu directly. I usually use git gui only for partial commits
(it's more convenient than 'git add -p' when the parts to commit and
the parts to not-commit are right next to each other), but it can be
your full console. For those who like the graphical things in life,
it's a good choice.

That and gitk for viewing the repo. I use gitk *all the time*, at work
and on my own projects, because it is excellent. (Actually I use a
minorly-patched gitk; must remember to submit the patch upstream some
day.)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48033

:

On 13 June 2013 17:53, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, something that requires typing commands would not fly.

I haven't used it (very rarely use GUI dev tools), but Tortoise Hg
<http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/> seems to have a decent reputation
for Mercurial (and is at least somewhat cross-platform).

 -[]z.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48041

On 6/13/2013 6:20 PM, Zero Piraeus wrote:
> :
>
> On 13 June 2013 17:53, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, something that requires typing commands would not fly.
>
> I haven't used it (very rarely use GUI dev tools), but Tortoise Hg
> <http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/> seems to have a decent reputation
> for Mercurial (and is at least somewhat cross-platform).

I use the tortoisehg context menus and HgWorkbench (gui access) and am 
mostly happy with it.


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48030

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 13 Jun 2013 22:34, "Chris Angelico" <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> It's
> possible to get git for Windows, including gitk and 'git gui' (not
> sure about any other graphical tools, they're the only two I use), but
> the most convenient way to use them is from a ported bash.

I must disagree. I used git a lot on windows this past year, on a Console
shell (which is basically a CMD.EXE shell with tabs and appropriate
select/copy/paste) and it was quite useful.

I must although say that I wasn't doing any merges and such. I was just
committing, pushing and diffing to check what I'd done.

I used gitk and the git commands. You can't "git diff" or "git show" or
"git log" because paging will suck terribly. But gitk was a nice substitute
for all that.

YMMV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48031

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> wrote:
> I must disagree. I used git a lot on windows this past year, on a Console
> shell (which is basically a CMD.EXE shell with tabs and appropriate
> select/copy/paste) and it was quite useful.

Maybe that's changed since the last time I installed it, then. Though
bash is still preferable to me, since that's what I use on Linux.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48035

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jun 13, 2013 10:17 AM, "Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 2013-06-13, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> writes:
> >
> >> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
> >> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision.
> >
> >> Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and
> >> Mercurial.
> >
> > These days there is no good reason to use CVS nor Subversion for new
> > projects. They are not distributed (the D in DVCS), and they have
> > specific design flaws that often cause insidious problems with common
> > version control workflows. As a salient example, branching and merging
> > are so painful with these tools that many users have learned the
> > terrible habit of never doing it at all.
>
> I agree that branch/merge handling in svn is primitive compared to git
> (haven't used hg enough to comment).
>
> The last time we made the choice (4-5 years ago), Windows support for
> get, bzr, and hg was definitely lacking compared to svn.  The lack of
> something like tortoisesvn for hg/git/bzr was a killer.  It looks like
> the situation has improved since then, but I'd be curious to hear from
> people who do their development on Windows.
>

There's a TortoiseHg now that works well. http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org

I haven't used it very much, but github has released a git client for
Windows.  The underlying library is the same one Microsoft uses for the
Visual Studio git integration, so I assume it's fairly robust at this point.
http://windows.github.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48040

Grant Edwards:

> The last time we made the choice (4-5 years ago), Windows support for
> get, bzr, and hg was definitely lacking compared to svn.  The lack of
> something like tortoisesvn for hg/git/bzr was a killer.  It looks like
> the situation has improved since then, but I'd be curious to hear from
> people who do their development on Windows.

    GUIs for Hg/Git are now much more usable. On Windows, OS X, and 
Linux my GUI/command line use split is about 80/20.

    For Hg, TortoiseHg is quite good on Windows and Linux and so is 
SourceTree on OS X. I don't use Git as much but SourceTree works well on 
OS X.

    SourceTree is in beta on Windows and doesn't yet support Hg there.

http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/
http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/

    Neil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47889

On 2013-06-12 16:27, cutems93 wrote:
> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision.

While I'm generally a git user (see my other email), I'll also put in
a plug for Fossil <http://fossil-scm.org/> which has a single binary
(making it easily installed), as well as an integrated bug-tracker &
wiki, and can be dropped onto a server as a CGI program with almost no
effort.  And it's primary author, Richard Hipp is famous for creating
sqlite, and for the rigorous testing under which both tools go.

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47890

In article <98c13a55-dbf2-46a7-a2aa-8c5f052ff375@googlegroups.com>,
 cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> wrote:

> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python 
> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision. Currently 
> I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial.

CVS is hopelessly obsolete.  SVN pretty much the same.

Git and Mercurial are essentially identical in terms of features; which 
you like is as much a matter of personal preference as anything else.  
Pick one and learn it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47949

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article <98c13a55-dbf2-46a7-a2aa-8c5f052ff375@googlegroups.com>,
>  cutems93 <ms2597@cornell.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
>> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision.
>> Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial.
> 
> CVS is hopelessly obsolete.  SVN pretty much the same.

I would say that SVN does have its uses, but managing software repositories 
isn't one of them due to the wealth of available alternatives out there 
which are far better than it.


> Git and Mercurial are essentially identical in terms of features; which
> you like is as much a matter of personal preference as anything else.
> Pick one and learn it.

I agree, but there is a feature Git provides right out of the box which is 
extremelly useful but Mercurial supports only as a non-standard module: the 
git stash feature.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web